FOR RELEASE NOVEMBER 20, 2020- New Economic History Book Reveals Hidden Struggle Behind the Industrial Revolution Nationalist Statesmen Battle Wall Street and Southern Slaveholders in Fight to Create Canals, Railroads and Modern Society.
What motivated the key people who created the industrial revolution?

In this ground-breaking new book on economic history, author Anton Chaitkin takes you behind the scenes, to see the two sides struggling to control American policy: nationalist statesmen and industrial innovators, versus the British empire, Wall Street, and the Southern slaveholders.

In Who We Are: America’s Fight for Universal Progress, from Franklin to Kennedy—Volume 1: 1750s to 1850s ($19.99, paperback, Amazon), Chaitkin draws from over 40 years of research to correct the disastrous flaw in the way the history of modern times has so far been presented.

Who We Are can be purchased in paperback at A Kindle edition will be available shortly.

Both imperial apologists such as Adam Smith, and “New Left” revisionists like Howard Zinn, portray greed as the motive force for modern development. Chaitkin demonstrates that all great advancements in our power over nature were deliberate projects for the improvement of humanity.

The author comments, “The only people who can seriously criticize the real evils of America today, are those who seriously appreciate what America—uniquely—did right in the past. That’s the purpose of the book.”

Chaitkin wrote the best-selling Treason in America, co-authored George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, and has written hundreds of sharply original investigative articles on American history.

Some startling details from Who We Are: Benjamin Franklin guides his friends in England who develop the steam engine, canals, and steelmaking—and discover biochemical laws of nature. Lord Shelburne’s British Intelligence system acts to prevent other countries from acquiring the new technical powers, by fake insurrections and the “free trade” dogma. Franklin and his close allies guide America’s revolt against the empire, write the Constitution, and strategize for a strong industrial nation-state. Thomas Jefferson betrays his ideals, joins the enemy Shelburne apparatus, defends southern slavery and British interests, and sabotages Alexander Hamilton’s founding development program. The British turn the French Revolution to anarchy and mass bloodshed—the first documented account of that regime-change intervention. America’s founding program remains blocked, until a new generation of nationalist leaders fight the British again and start industrialization. Finally, in the 1820’s, acting as a team in government and the military, an idealistic core group builds U.S. canals, coal and iron industries, and railroads. They bring on modern times, and actively aid other countries’ industrial progress—all this against the violent opposition of the pro-slavery and British imperial interests. The book is extensively documented, and each chapter concludes with a section of relevant pictures.

Volume 1 takes us to the Civil War. Volume 2 (planned for 2021) carries the story of progress, versus empire, from Abraham Lincoln to John F. Kennedy.

An accompanying website to the book contains color pictures, live links to the wealth of cited archival sources, and additional information. Visit: interview Anton Chaitkin about “Who We Are: America’s Fight for Universal Progress, from Franklin to Kennedy. Volume 1: 1750s to 1850s” contact Anton Chaitkin at


Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount


Or enter a custom amount

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

One thought

  1. The book’s subtitle “America’s Fight for Universal Progress from Franklin to Kennedy” is promising.
    However, I just read notes about the book from the author’s website and, based on that, see that there are some serious misrepresentations and omissions regarding the history it purports to cover.

    In particular, I’m referring to exalting Alexander Hamilton as a champion of the worthy alternative “American system,” while representing Thomas Jefferson in a negative light vis a vis the same and as a champion of the “British system!” This is certainly a direct inversion of the relevant history.

    The summary of Chapter 6 on the author’s website says (see:—american-prometheus) –

    “The previous chapters have prepared the reader to understand America’s founding nationalist economic program, as set forth by Alexander Hamilton, and the British-inspired attack against that program, led by Jefferson. Here is presented the sequence of events in this showdown, which had enormous consequences for all subsequent history.” Related excerpts, “The essential points in Hamilton’s plan, which were later implemented to industrialize the USA and other great nations” and “…the terrible predicament that led away from Hamilton’s leadership to a system of two rotten political parties, that caused important nationalists to join the anti-nationalist Jeffersonian party, and that aborted, for a time, the plan for America’s industrial development.”

    Where to start? I’m not suggesting the author is intentionally fictionalizing yet, clearly, some key widely known points are being misrepresented.

    It’s critical to understand that Hamilton was the original Rothschilds-BoE agent within the founding circles, which centered upon Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Washington and others. The “Federalist Papers” debate between Hamilton and James Madison was an early clear signal that Hamilton favored the old British crown model of centralized power and finance, while the Jefferson-Madison-Franklin wing were instead trying to create the new and far more sane American alternative involving de-centralized power, inalienable human rights and distributed self-governance.

    Hamilton’s key founding project was to insist upon installing what became the “Original Trojan Horse of Empire” implanted at the heart of the new nation via his tireless championing of what became the First Bank of the United States, its major shareholders all linked to the British Crown and the Rothschilds (which was documented when the original Bank’s charter expired in 1810). George Washington, 1st US President, approved Hamilton’s Bank sales pitch over the direct objections of Jefferson and Franklin, granting it a 20-year charter.

    In agreeing to this 1790 version of the much later Crown-BoE-Rothschilds 1913 Fed trojan horse, Washington drove a stake into the heart of Benjamin Franklin’s original Treasury banking plan, which had been a key objective of the British Crown that led to outbreak of the revolutionary war.


    “Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists advocated a bank through an expansive interpretation of the Constitution, which made no provision for chartering federal corporations. Thomas Jefferson and other Anti-Federalists urged “strict constructionism” and opposed the bank. In 1791, both Hamilton and Jefferson gave Federalist George Washington (1789-1797) their interpretations. Washington sided with Hamilton and signed a law creating the first Bank of the United States. Part of Jefferson’s opposition to the central bank stemmed from his belief that it catered to commercial and financial interests while hurting the agricultural sector. While critical of the Bank of the United States, Jefferson did not undermine it as president. But when the bank’s charter expired in 1811, his interpretation of the Constitution swayed public opinion against the bank. His successor, James Madison (1809-1817), vetoed a bill rechartering the bank.”

    Jefferson’s objections to the Hamilton Bank project was well known. For example, his famous quote, “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.”

    So, why did Jefferson not openly oppose the Bank while 3rd US President? That again traces back to Hamilton. Hamilton agreed to be the tie-breaker putting Jefferson in office as President, in exchange for agreeing not to challenge the Bank.


    “Hamilton secretly put together his terms for rallying Federalist support to Jefferson: the next administration could not undo the financial and bank system; it could not remove Federalist appointees and it had to preserve the US Navy, among other things. Hamilton had his scheme while other prominent Federalists disagreed and still viewed Jefferson as their ultimate target to defeat. As this was being debated, Jefferson came to the decision to accept the terms of Hamilton’s scheme. Though never admitting it, his administration would not challenge a single stipulation put forth by his longtime political rival. The Federalist plan was now set.”

    There we have it. Yet, that did not stop Jefferson from encouraging his friend and protege James Madison, who became the next US President, not to renew the Bank’s 20 year charter. For years, that was a valient fight. So, why did Madison ultimately cave? Because Nathan Rothschild made direct threats that he would create a “disastrous war” for the US if the Bank’s charter was not renewed, ultimately leading to him arranging…”the War of 1812,” which was nothing more than arsonist’s revenge.

    So, really, quite strange that this book exalts Alexander Hamilton as an inventor of the new and far healthier American political-economic model – its key architects being Franklin, Jefferson and Madison – while Hamilton, in fact, was the core “Crown agent” operating within the founding circles.

    While Hamilton favored a Crown-BoE controlled US Bank and centralized power, Jefferson was the chief skeptic of centralized power among the core founders network, favoring states rights. Madison, key architect of the Constitution, credited Jefferson as the driving force behind the Bill of Rights. As Vice-President under Adams, Jefferson vehemently opposed the Alien & Sedition Act, the “Patriot Act” of its day. Jefferson formed the first political party offering an “original American alternative” to the Federalist model Hamilton championed, the “Democrat Republican” party, etc.

Leave a Reply